in stopping stepdaughters maintenance payments?

[postmanbob]

namechanged as don't want to be recognised.

DH has a DD(11) from previous relationship and we have 2 DC together, both pre-school age. We have a good relationship with SD and regular contact. My DH has paid maintenance every month without fail since the relationship broke up when SD was still a baby. We met a couple of years after that. Maintenance was agreed between them both and has not been an issue until now.

DH is in the construction industry and we have been hit hard this last year, his job is hanging on a wire and they have been as much as told to take it week by week.

I work very very p/t and my department have had trouble recruiting for a f/t job recently. Anyway, I spoketo my manager, they interviewed me and I have been offered the post. This means my DH will give his notice so he can care for our children. My new job is secure (NHS). The salary will be less than DH and mine but it is secure and we can survive on it.....but we will be unable to make the maintenance payments.

Does this sound dreadful or understandable? We are both very torn on what to do and I have to accept/ decline by Friday. I should add that it will not cause his ex finacial hardship......but I'm sure she will make a big fuss.

He isn't trying to walk away from reasponsibility though? They want to pay but need to reduce it a bit in line with their incomings- that's fair I think; the new situation will mean some payment given, rdundanxcy would mean a fiver a week I think. And I think we can all agree that redundancy in the comnstruction industry is indeed likely atm?

Tbh OP's Dp sounds like a great father and that they ahev all been maing rather a good job of this so far. Hardly ay neglect of dd1 going from whats posted

If he hasnt got the money Quattro he cannot pay. Thats not walking from responsibility, its economics!
As he has a history of paying over the odds I am certain when he can pay again he will once again.

btw bob though Im sure YANBU, I do think your bloody daft to post for reasonable opinions here
Take yourself off to a fathers or stepparents forum for less hysterical advice!

ok I've read the thread and i still stand by what i've said

i'm interested in this idea that second families are treated as second class citizens as in my experience it is the opposite of what happens and that is bourne out here..obviously we all have different experiences

the op's job may be in danger, nothing has happened yet, but it may be in danger. The op has the opportunity of a job she wants and has now been offered. As they have decided that their children shouldn't be in childcare that means her dp must remove himself from the land of work and end maintence to his original family???

how does that make the second family second class?

He could try to find another role whilst remaining in his role for the time being...

Surely this has to do with the second family stating their right to chose what happens to their family's income no matter what the rights or wrongs are with that scenario

No one is redundant this is a situation that is being preempted by the op and I think imho that in these circs she is being unreasonable.

That she has said that she and her dp have always decided that she and her dp's relationship comes above that of their combined children is strange to me as well, again, just my humble opinion.

Lets hope that she and her dp stay together as I have seen lots of women make these very "reasonable" calls which feel very unreaonable when they have to face them if the dp moves on and has another family that comes first

I still think that as long as they pay the csa going rate minimum n time and regularly then they're doing Ok (wrt finance, obv loads of additional stuff too like time).

Now if they weren't doing that then it'd be wrong obv.

My initial resonse was stay put until job goes kaput- but OP may not have a chance at a ft job ten which culd turn out much worse all round

There are some right fucker nrp's and partners out there, but doesn't sound as if this is one

don't get the kid / relationship thing but if kids are cared for then its each to their wn I suppose?

When the child in question has two homes with four parents, why are not all four parents incomes and both household costs taken into account when looking at what the father should pay ?

Doesn't make sense for one family to put themselves in the poorhouse when the other family have no real need for the money.

Good Luck Postmanbob, sorting things out with your DSD mother, hope you can come to an agreement.

If you are not earning as much as a family as you previously were then I think looking at the amount you pay and possibly reducing it could be acceptable, but to stop it is wrong.

Ah the nice side of the Canadian system. The same one that also sets an amount, regardless of your current income because that's what your earning potential is? The same one that set a disabled man £1,000 a month for three children? The man had to hand in his driving licence (how is that supposed to help him earn enough to pay £1,000 a month out?) and ended up fleeing home to England (where he hasn't lived for 26 years) and if he ever steps foot in Canada he will be arrested.

Yeah, it's something to aspire to

oh and that was the earning potential his xwife said he had, even though he was unable to work because of his disability and probably never will again and he had provided details of his income.

A few points.

I work in the construction industry. I am seeing clients go into administration on a weekly basis. This week already two medium size companies have gone under owing us rather a lot of money.
Every single day construction companies are laying people off and often they cannot pay them their final salary. I have employed someone this month who worked for a fairly large scaffolding firm, he was laid off without warning and his pay never arrived. The company has gone bust.
The op's husband is right to be making alternative plans. As a family they need at least one secure income, that is the building block to allow them to improve things. That is what they have opted for. I see no issue with that.
They are doing what they can to provide for all of their children in the future rather than end up with no home and no money for clothing etc.
I'm quite sure the op will continue to feed and clothe her stepdaughter when she is with them.

I am a stepmother, my income has got feck all to do my dsd's mum.
When my dsd is with us (60% of the time) i buy her clothes, cook her decent meals, take her out for treats etc and enjoy her being here because i love her.I am the one who chases her school and gp for the various assessments etc, i am the one who took her to hospital because her mother handed her out of the door one night with a severe infection in her foot. I will do all that and more gladly.

What i am not prepared to do is to be told that i and i alone am responsible for her finanicial support if my partner doesn't work.
He is her father, she also has a mother. As co-parents they have that responsibility.
My responsibility on a day to day financial basis is to the household that i and my dd and my dsd live in.

I think it is rather sad that there are so many on this thread who seem to think that the op should bankrupt herself to pay the maintenence. So many have not really read the thread, but rather seen the words stepmother and maintenence and jumped right in for a jolly good judging session.

Just read the recent posts and I'm getting quite upset tbh. We are not 'cutting her off' we simply cannot afford to pay maintenance of that level anymore...regardless of whether DH resigns or not -

My DH has overpaid for years.....10 years to date. He also paid the mortgage on their house for the first 4 years ( and lived at home with his mum in order to do so) after he left and she kept all the equity when they sold the place to put deposit on the house she was buying with her DP. I have never, ever, ever complained about this and DH has done so with good will and wanting the best. His ex is settled and comfortable, we are not.

I am not opposed to childcare but it is not for me and that was something we decided before starting our family - my DH totally agrees and he felt the same way - one of the reasons his ex was able to stay home with her DD after he left was because of the maintenance he paid and the mortgage payments he made. I point balnk refuse to out my kids into daycare so we can continue to pay that amount. That is the only thing I am not compromising with.

My boys have very little, they share a room so SD can have her own when she stays. They have second hand everything and don't do any activities. SD does horseriding, drama goes on the school ski holidays

i don't know why I am even trying to justify this but this is the first time we have ever tried to re-adjust anything with SD.....and yes, my boys will have the luxury of a sah parent until they go to school because that is the only thing that is remotely similar to how my SD has been raised. My DH has overpaid almost by double for 10 years....even if he never aid another penny he has more than inputted finacially into her life. The fact he has been there constantly for her (as have I for several years seems to be overlooked). If he had taken his equity share of the house we wouldnt have such a big mortgage to pay but he felt it was right for SD to have security of a house and we didnt have children at the time. I now want that same security for my children.

And to those of you saying he needs to get a better more secure job are obviously blind to what is happening in the construction industry at the minute - wake up! Ther eis no such thing.

I am very very saddened that people think my boys and I should have to contimue to struggle...do my children not deserve to have security and comfort of their home.

I am about to phone my boss and accept the job and I have no regrets whatsoever about that. This thread has only made me feel more strongly that it is the right thing to do.

crossposted newspirits - thankyou so much for your words....i guess you understand

postmanbob - I think you're doing the right thing - the next thing of course - is to get your DH to sit down with his ex and explain the situation with her. It sounds from your posts that there is a fairly amicable relationship between all of you so I hope a compromise can be found with her that will leave everyone happy

Don't take it all to heart, postmanbob. I think a lot of people are reading their own situation into it, rather than going on the fact you have given.

postmanbob i think most of us are in complete agreement that you are making the right choice and that you have everyones best interest at heart. The problem with threads like this is that they are really emotive (lots of us have been really hurt by money squabbles betweeen parents in the past and the simple fact is that there is often simply not enough money to go around so everyone feels hard done by).

Sorry -facts

postmanbob. Good luck with your new job, hopefully this change will be a good one for you.

Even if not everyone agreed with you, you have had sound advice, and been able to come to a conclusion.

oh and just to add that I'm coming at this from my perspective of being the resident parent, who could easily find herself in the same position in the future (especially given that exH is already living with his new woman....)

Good luck Postmanbob

And hear hear Newspirit.

thankyou

the deed is done...starting in dec! DH going to phone ex later to speak about this...one last payment and then we shall see.

I'm getting so annoyed at people going on about responsibility of the step parent. Since when did SP's start getting PR? In your little heads maybe and in your heads SPs should pay. Yes great, if the SP can afford to and more importantly WANTS to that's up to her/him. But legally there is no PR to SP's and no obligation for them to pay anything.

If she had posted that her husband's job was insecure so she was going back to work full time and he was going to become a househusband, no one would have an objection to it. This is, after all the 21stC! But because the law says if they do that he doesn't have to keep paying maintenance then there's a problem. But she's not going to stop paying altogether, she has decided to make a payment of her own to cover for the fact that her husband doesn't have to pay.

I agree with EleanorRigby and TheHedgeWitch and anyone else who said it, it's about second families being treated less than first. I've noticed this with my partner still being married people assume I'm the wicked woman who stole him away! I was a newly wed when they split up BTW.

FioFio, that had occurred to me I was just thinking, if they have proof of how much they've been paying and went to the CSA then they would see a drastic cut in what they have to pay. Over the next three years I doubt they would have to pay anything. I admire the fact they still want to pay something when they don't have to either way you look at it.